2. The lower court determined that the facts charged cannot be deemed as proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in full view of ① the Defendant’s initial use of the borrowed money from the victims (hereinafter “the borrowed money in this case”) as the substitute deposit, ② the Defendant invested the surplus funds in the housing project due to changes in external circumstances after, and the housing project did not proceed as expected, and ultimately, the victims were in arrears of the principal and interest of the borrowed money. ③ In light of the victims’ primary purpose of lending the borrowed money, ③ the form of a loan certificate drawn up between the victims, and the risk of the substitute repayment, it cannot be deemed that the use of the borrowed money in this case was limited to the substitute deposit, ④ the Defendant’s failure to pay the borrowed money at financial institutions at the time of the receipt of the borrowed money in this case.

In light of the following circumstances known by the court below in detail, the court below’s decision is justifiable, and the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

First, in light of all the circumstances seen below, the defendant cannot be deemed to have deceiving the purpose of the loan of this case.

1 Victim B lending 12 million won from the court of the court below as of January 20, 2014 to the defendant as of January 20, 2014, for the purpose of living expenses, such as card payments, not large patients.

Until August 2013, the Defendant used the instant borrowed money as the substitute deposit, and at the beginning of 2014, the Defendant said that he invested in the money for a housing project as required to repay the borrowed money, and thereafter, the Defendant invested in August 2013 as a result of confirmation.